5 ms·

What's the alternative to deliberately trying to change the environment in order to combat the effects of global warming or even reversing that process entirely

What's the alternative to deliberately trying to change the environment in order to combat the effects of global warming or even reversing that process entirely? We've effectively, though inadvertently and not to our benefit, already been modifying our environment for quite some time now. Simply limiting CO2 output might just not be enough to avoid a catastrophic outcome in the future. Even if it were, that 'simply' in 'simply limiting' might not be so simple after all. Even if all relevant political bodies in the world agreed on this - which they currently and unfortunately sometimes emphatically don't - the exact means of how do so in any meaningful way isn't entirely clear. You can't just order industry and traffic to produce less CO2 overnight. It certainly won't be an easy solution but such approaches need to be discussed and not ruled out entirely beforehand.

jimmytucson 7y ago
> What’s the alternative How about just having our cake and not eating it too? Rewind the last 200 years and go back to a preindustrial society. Admit that this level of progress is a candidate for the Great Filter and turn around. Sounds crazy, but if facing imminent destruction, why rule anything out?
- BjoernKW 7y ago
  Deliberately going back to a preindustrial society in the end means deciding who is going to live and who isn't (including both currently living human beings and those potentially born in the future). Who is to make that decision and on what grounds? By the way, intentionally rewinding to a preindustrial society technically is a candidate for the Great Filter, too. While a civilisation that does this will survive it won't be discoverable anymore in order to provide an answer to the question "Where's everyone?".
- polotics 7y ago
  Back to preindustrial society? What to do with the 80% of humanity this can't feed?
mytailorisrich 7y ago
> not to our benefit That remains to be seen, IMHO because it would be very lucky that the current global climate is the optimum for human activities. For example, with a bit more CO2 in the atmosphere plants grow bigger. Warming might also open more land to agriculture than is lost. Etc.
- abraae 7y ago
  Yeah, possibly, or more likely it's incredibly dangerous making rapid changes to the chaotic but balanced system that we live within. The plants might grow bigger - until a voracious pest migrates into the newly available area and destroys them, or wildfires raging in the newly warmed area burn them to the ground. The current global climate is probably not the optimum for human activities - perhaps that was some time ago, before the extreme weather events that we are ushering in started wreaking havoc. There's no reason to believe that fucking up the planet is somehow leading us towards a better, more optimum situation.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    My point is that a warmer climate does not imply a worse climate for human activities overall. Currently the narrative is change = bad.
    - polotics 7y ago
      What narrative? There are extensive models! More climate chaos = bad!
      - mytailorisrich 7y ago
        Using the term "climate chaos" in a discussion about changing climate is indeed pushing a narrative.
- mikeash 7y ago
  CO2 levels have increased by 50% over the past couple of centuries. Are plants growing bigger as a result?
kaybe 7y ago
> Simply limiting CO2 output might just not be enough to avoid a catastrophic outcome in the future. All but one of the IPCC scenarios now require massive CO2 sequestration on the order of half of current yearly emissions starting in 2050. --> Current emissions are 40 Gt CO2/year, the sequestration is calculated at 20 Gt CO2/year, the optimists of the IPCC give us 4-500 Gt CO2 further leeway of emissions to stay below 1.5°C until 2100 which are about 10 more years at the current rate. (However, the methane deposits in the permafrost are thawing far faster than the models said, so we might have a lot less.) We should be rioting in the streets, really. The kids have the right idea.
wongarsu 7y ago
The "sane" alternative is to reduce our CO2 emissions to a point where we can use carbon capture to remove more than we emit. While fertilizing aquatic plants is also a form of carbon capture it's much harder to control and understand compared to our artificial methods. Whether we have the political will to do this before positive feedback cycles make it impossible remains to be seen.

jimmytucson 7y ago

> What’s the alternative How about just having our cake and not eating it too? Rewind the last 200 years and go back to a preindustrial society. Admit that this level of progress is a candidate for the Great Filter and turn around. Sounds crazy, but if facing imminent destruction, why rule anything out?

BjoernKW 7y ago
Deliberately going back to a preindustrial society in the end means deciding who is going to live and who isn't (including both currently living human beings and those potentially born in the future). Who is to make that decision and on what grounds? By the way, intentionally rewinding to a preindustrial society technically is a candidate for the Great Filter, too. While a civilisation that does this will survive it won't be discoverable anymore in order to provide an answer to the question "Where's everyone?".
polotics 7y ago
Back to preindustrial society? What to do with the 80% of humanity this can't feed?

mytailorisrich 7y ago

> not to our benefit That remains to be seen, IMHO because it would be very lucky that the current global climate is the optimum for human activities. For example, with a bit more CO2 in the atmosphere plants grow bigger. Warming might also open more land to agriculture than is lost. Etc.

abraae 7y ago
Yeah, possibly, or more likely it's incredibly dangerous making rapid changes to the chaotic but balanced system that we live within. The plants might grow bigger - until a voracious pest migrates into the newly available area and destroys them, or wildfires raging in the newly warmed area burn them to the ground. The current global climate is probably not the optimum for human activities - perhaps that was some time ago, before the extreme weather events that we are ushering in started wreaking havoc. There's no reason to believe that fucking up the planet is somehow leading us towards a better, more optimum situation.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  My point is that a warmer climate does not imply a worse climate for human activities overall. Currently the narrative is change = bad.
  - polotics 7y ago
    What narrative? There are extensive models! More climate chaos = bad!
    - mytailorisrich 7y ago
      Using the term "climate chaos" in a discussion about changing climate is indeed pushing a narrative.
mikeash 7y ago
CO2 levels have increased by 50% over the past couple of centuries. Are plants growing bigger as a result?

kaybe 7y ago

> Simply limiting CO2 output might just not be enough to avoid a catastrophic outcome in the future. All but one of the IPCC scenarios now require massive CO2 sequestration on the order of half of current yearly emissions starting in 2050. --> Current emissions are 40 Gt CO2/year, the sequestration is calculated at 20 Gt CO2/year, the optimists of the IPCC give us 4-500 Gt CO2 further leeway of emissions to stay below 1.5°C until 2100 which are about 10 more years at the current rate. (However, the methane deposits in the permafrost are thawing far faster than the models said, so we might have a lot less.) We should be rioting in the streets, really. The kids have the right idea.

wongarsu 7y ago

The "sane" alternative is to reduce our CO2 emissions to a point where we can use carbon capture to remove more than we emit. While fertilizing aquatic plants is also a form of carbon capture it's much harder to control and understand compared to our artificial methods. Whether we have the political will to do this before positive feedback cycles make it impossible remains to be seen.